The hot news story is the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal at Penn State. Coach Joe Paterno's reputation has been destroyed faster than anyone I've seen, without ever being committed of a crime.
Sandusky is the child molester and Penn State fired him back in 1999. So what does this scandal have to do with Penn State? The complaint against Penn State officials is that they should have called CPS based on hearsay and suspicions about Sandusky.
I think that CPS is evil. Child molesters are also evil. University officials are usually spinelss jerks. But I don't see where the officials did wrong in this case.
After some 1998 allegations, they confronted Sandusky and got him to admit to inappropriate behavior. They turned the case over to the police, but there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. They fired him. Most of the blame on the Penn State officials is based on their handling of a 2002 allegation.
My theory is that McQueary is lying about that 2002 incident. He says that he witnesses a brutal rape of a 10-year-old boy in the shower, and he walked away without doing anything. I say Sandusky was showering inappropriately, but not committing sodomy. Years later, the DA puts the heat on McQueary and tells him that they need his testimony to put away a child molester. He cooperates. Then the DA says that they’ve widened the investigation to nail officials in a cover-up. McQueary starts to get cold feet. The DA threatens to charge McQueary with failure to report, unless he testifies against Paterno and Curley. McQueary agrees, in exchange for immunity from prosecution and anonymity in the grand jury report. McQueary complies with DA pressure to exaggerate the allegations.
I think that it is pretty crazy to blame someone for not calling CPS in 2002, when no one knows what happened, or who the boy was, or what was said about it. It is also pretty crazy for prosecutors to base their whole case on a witness who, by his own admission, walked away from a child rape without intervening or reporting it.
The state mandated reporter laws usually people in the child care business to report suspected child abuse in kids under their care. I am not sure how this applies to an ex-employee who brings a non-student child onto campus. Some people are probably going to say that this case shows that officials should not just report suspected child abuse to CPS, but also any inappropriate behavior with a child. I do not agree, but I am afraid that public opinion seems to tilting toward reporting everything as a result of hysteria about cases like this.
Everyone blames Penn State for delays in taking action. But the current evidence against Sandusky was presented to the DA in Spring 2008, and they investigated for 3.5 years before arresting Sandusky. I really don't see how the DA can blame Penn State for not seeing that he was a child molester when the DA took 3.5 years to figure it out.
13 comments:
Mcqueary is lying or giving "evolved" testimony for the PA AG and governor for the perjury traps for PSU admin. Corbett want to put Tom Ridge in as the next PSU pres. Joe Paterno is collateral damage to Corbett who doesn't care because it diverts his past inaction going back to 1995-1997 and 2004 on when he was PA AG.
Victim #2 can't be found according to the state. So when Corbett says that Mcqueary is a material witness what he means is he is material to the perjury traps for the PSU admins. He isn't material to the "rape" because they don't have a victim.
They actually don't have any witnesses to any of the sex crimes. It is all he said he said. Read the indictments: senile witness, no victim #2, the other accounts are from victims with no corroboration.
Anal rape of a boy would leave medical evidence, if examined promptly. Are you saying that there is none of that? I didn't read the whole indictment, just the part about the Penn State officials. If Sandusky is anything like the monster he is portrayed to be, there ought to be some hard evidence.
Interesting about Apeoj defense of Penn State. Why? That CPS is, in my opinion, worthless. McQueary, if he's lying, is really setting himself up for lawsuits. Why would he do this. And including his father? Supposedly he's on leave because of death threats. I don't think we've been given enough information to say that McQueary is lying. Certainly Sandusky et al are saying nothing. It's all leaking out as secrets will.
I think that McQueary thought that he would be a hero for testifying against a child molester and helping to put him in prison.
Not trying to defend PSU. Pointing out that it took 13 years to get Sandusky arrested. Gov. Corbett should have said, let's focus on him and we will then sort out the blame of how this went on for so long. Instead, and convenient to him, the perjury charges against PSU are foremost to the prosecution. I say this because as I pointed out, there is no victim #2 and it is disingenuous for the state to say they can't find out who it is. McQueary can't be a material witness like Corbett says he is because there is no victim. What would he testify to without a victim?
Addendum:
From a reliable source? Evidently Mcqueary as a player at PSU single-handedly broke up a knife fight between two football players that was pretty serious. Police credited his actions. And yet, he wouldn't come to the assistance of a child? The state AG has him labeled as the most "credible" witness yet the sum is 3 people to his 1. Conveniently, the person who he consulted first, his dad (who by definition is "a required reporter") is left out of the investigation.
Now Sandusky is saying that he can locate victim #2. Maybe he will be able to disprove that claim.
But there will be many more gold diggers making claims.
And now, as predicted, McQueary is further evolving his story: He (and he is probably being threatened by state AG) states in E-mails to friends that he "made sure it stopped, not physically, but he made sure it stopped" and he spoke to the police afterwards. HUH? So now we go back to who is the policeman he spoke to?
If McQueary changes his story and says that he notified the police, then the case against Penn State evaporates.
But Penn State will probably have to pay millions of dollars in lawsuits anyway.
George's original post:
"I think that it is pretty crazy to blame someone for not calling CPS in 2002, when no one knows what happened, or who the boy was, or what was said about it. It is also pretty crazy for prosecutors to base their whole case on a witness who, by his own admission, walked away from a child rape without intervening or reporting it."
Geroge @9:330 pm:
"Anal rape of a boy would leave medical evidence, if examined promptly. Are you saying that there is none of that? I didn't read the whole indictment, just the part about the Penn State officials. If Sandusky is anything like the monster he is portrayed to be, there ought to be some hard evidence.
Geez, maybe before you go spouting off here and elsewhere on the Internet, it would behoove you to read the Grand Jury report; it's only 23 pages.
Has it not occurred to you that an investigation on the heels of the 2002 incident described in the Grand Jury's report would likely have led to ascertaining that 10-year-old's identity, etc.? The fact that the trail grew cold with the passage of time isn't proof that Victim 2 was not forcibly sodomized.
On the other hand, it's also possible that a contemporaneous investigation -- including a physical exam of Victim 2 -- would have prompted the conclusion that he had not been subjected to anal rape.
And P.S.: the investigation would not have been conducted by CPS; Sandusky and these boys were not in the kind of familial relationship that is within CPS purview. Even if the allegations were directed at Sandusky's interaction with one of his 6 adopted children, it would be a police matter.
Apeoj @9:07 AM:
"They actually don't have any witnesses to any of the sex crimes. It is all he said he said. Read the indictments: senile witness, no victim #2, the other accounts are from victims with no corroboration."
Um, no. The testimony of Victim 1 is corroborated, in no small measure, by his wrestling coach, his school principal and the cell phone records. Sandusky himself owned up to showering with Victim 6, hugging the boy's naked body, volunteered recognition that "I was wrong...I wish I were dead".
In any event, eyewitnesses are not a prerequisite to indictment or a guilty verdict at trial. And I assume that Pennsylvania law does not require a victim's testimony before the Grand Jury because the highest levels of felony crimes charged by the 44-count indictment pertain to the acts allegedly committed against Victims 2 and 8.
Given the existence of those counts, I don't think leaping to the conclusion that McQueary is material only to "the perjury traps" is warranted.
Ms. D. Meanor, if McQueary had intervened or call the police in 2002, then it is likely that the truth of his allegation could be determined. So yes, I agree with you that a contemporaneous investigation would have resolved the anal rape claim.
And yes, eyewitnesses are not necessary for a guilty. But it is a little hard for me to see how Sandusky could have been so flagrantly raping dozens of boys over 20 years, and there is no hard evidence.
George:
George:
"It is a little hard for me to see how Sandusky could have been so flagrantly raping dozens of boys over 20 years, and there is no hard evidence."
That sure seems like a strawman assertion. I've certainly not opined [nor do I have reason to believe] that Sandusky was "so flagrantly raping dozens of boys over 20 years".
Ms. D. Meanor, maybe you have not jumped to horrible conclusions about Sandusky, but nearly everyone else has.
Post a Comment